...Critical Analysis of Meditations on the First Philosophy Gage Berryman Philosophy 101 April 17, 2014 Rene Descartes writes his Meditations on First Philosophy according to God and the soul. Both of these factors are addressed in all six of his meditations. Each meditation has its own theme and main objective that contribute to its explanation. Although Descartes writing was challenging to understand, I have found sources to help clarify and back up the ideas that have been stated. I will analysis the ideas Descartes has mentioned in the first three of his meditations. The first meditation: “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful” In this section, Descartes states that he does not trust his senses because they are deceptive. He questions the sciences and the deceptiveness that they have within them. The only science that he believes to be truthful is arithmetic and geometry. They are based on simple objects. The other sciences are untrustworthy because they come from composite ideas. Descartes states “there is nothing in all that I formerly believed to be true” God also plays a large part in the discussion of this meditation. He believes that God is not deceptive and only speaks the truth. The journal Substance and Action in Descartes and Newton states “from Descartes's point of view, we cannot think of God as extended because God lacks geometric properties, unlike ordinary material bodies, which have shapes, and whose parts have various...
Words: 1189 - Pages: 5
...Keni Phil 21 Greg Antill Part A: 1. The Evil Demon Argument In Descartes’ First Meditation, he completely shatters the foundations of his previous beliefs and then uses the evil demon argument as a platform in which he can explain the source of his beliefs. Descartes proposes the evil demon argument because he wants to instill doubt not only in himself, but also in his audience that God may not be the only “Supreme Being”. He believes God to be a good being that wouldn’t deceive us and lead our thoughts astray. The evil demon argument has the purpose of casting doubt on his belief that God is the only being who has the capability of implementing thoughts into his mind, creating doubt of the existence of an external world, and aiding his pursuit of a strong and certain foundation for all his knowledge and beliefs. In this argument, Descartes doesn’t refute the reality of a God, however I believe he presents the argument as if they both exist and that if he is being deceived it could not be from God, the good being, but the evil genius providing him with false sensory material. The primary claim of this skeptical argument is to doubt the reality of an external world that has the possibility of being created by an evil demon. Deceit could be defined in such a way that our minds are being controlled by an evil demon and that our senses of an external world are mistaken. Depicting the evil demon argument of Descartes in a science fiction way like “The Matrix,” made me really understand...
Words: 1511 - Pages: 7
...RENE DESCARTES’ METHODS OF DOUBT Introduction The theory of knowledge and analytical method advanced by the French philosopher Rene Descartes is often summed up in the famous phrase, Cogito ergo sum- “I think, therefore I am.” While this phrase does express the final step in his systematic process of “doubting everything,” it is a gross over-simplification of Descartes’ methods. Descartes did use systematic doubt to find the starting point for his theory of knowledge, but his other philosophical inquiries involved several different methods of doubting, from simply imagining that which is contradictory, to carrying logical postulates to absurd conclusions, to the more traditional methods of testing syllogisms and analyzing proofs. In this essay, I will examine Rene Descartes’ various methods of doubt, to show that the philosopher did not rely on the single reductio ad absurdum in his famous proof of his own existence. Descartes, as we will see, employed several different approaches to philosophical proofs, and he was not the mechanistic logician that his mathematical background might suggest. It will be the argument of this essay that Descartes applied different methods of doubt to different problems, depending upon whether the problem was epistemological, scientific or theological in nature. Existential Doubt: Do I Exist? The first and best-known method of doubt employed by Descartes involves reductionism, in the sense that he used a negative or reverse logical path...
Words: 2190 - Pages: 9
...Does God Exist? Descartes’ Arguments and Proofs Rene Descartes considers what he can be sure to be true in his Meditations on First Philosophy. His meditations cover a vast variety of areas: the nature of the mind and body, the senses, the essence and existence of material things; but of all of these topics, one of his most thought-provoking and fascinating meditations is that on the existence of God. His argument is fairly well stated, but it is not flawless in its reasoning and logic. Through explanation and analysis of his position, this paper will set out his belief on the existence of God, the importance of this argument to his overall position, and to discuss several of the problems in his reasoning. The first proof at which Descartes considers God is the in the third meditation. By this point, Descartes has already concluded that the only thing thus far that he can be sure of is that he exists as some sort of thinking thing. He has considered the existence of a malevolent spirit that has set out specifically to deceive him at every turn, which has the effect of rendering any other belief spurious at best. In the face of the possibility that something is deliberately setting out to deceive him, he is left only with the knowledge that he is a thinking thing. From there, we get into the third meditation, wherein Descartes considers the possibility of the existence of God, and what precisely that would entail. (Beyssade) Descartes starts by pointing out that in order...
Words: 1540 - Pages: 7
...Descartes' Methodic Doubt René Descartes (1596-1650) is an example of a rationalist. According to Descartes, before we can describe the nature of reality (as is done in metaphysics) or say what it means for something to be or exist (which is the focus of ontology), we must first consider what we mean when we say we know what reality, being, or existence is. He suggests that it is pointless to claim that something is real or exists unless we first know how such a claim could be known as a justified true belief. But to say that our beliefs are justified, we have to be able to base them ultimately on a belief that is itself indubitable. Such a belief could then provide a firm foundation on which all subsequent beliefs are grounded and could thus be known as true. This way of thinking about knowledge is called foundationalism. In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Descartes indicates how we are able to guarantee our beliefs about reality by limiting what we believe to what is indubitable or is based on what is indubitable. That involves him in a series of six "meditations" (of which we will focus on only the first two) about the proper method of philosophical reflection and the conclusions that can be drawn from using that method. Throughout these Meditations Descartes insists that (1) we should claim to know only that for which we have justification, (2) we cannot appeal to anything outside of our ideas for such justification, and (3) we judge our ideas using a method...
Words: 1949 - Pages: 8
...a formal “Introduction”. You can just immediately say what you are going to do in the paper. The Basic Structure [Paragraph 1] [First one or two sentence(s) restating the question as your thesis] [Section 1: Summary] [Say what you are going to do in this section of your paper.] *Now state each step in the philosopher’s argument in your own words.+ [Assert the reasons the philosopher gives in the text for his/her conclusion.] [Back up that assertion with a quotation or two.] [Explain why the quotation(s) you used are important.] [If you have done the above for each of the philosopher’s premises in the argument, you can now restate the conclusion of the argument.] [Section 2: Critical analysis/critique of the argument] [Analyze each premise of the argument you summarized.] [Explanation] [Is the premise true or false?] [Explain why you think so.] [Give an example to support this.] [Explain your example.] [Clarify your explanation.] [Consider possible objections the philosopher could have to particular criticisms you made above.] [Conclude with a sentence asserting that you have proved your thesis.] Detailed Explanation and Examples 1. [Paragraph 1] Explain the purpose of your paper. [This means restate the essay question]. a. [First one or two sentence(s)] For example, if you are being asked to summarize and critique Descartes’ argument for mind/body dualism, then you would say something like: i. “In...
Words: 2231 - Pages: 9
...Willie Franklin Intro to Philosophy Professor David Scott 5/13/13 Critical Analysis Paper: Plato Vs. Descartes Plato lived in a time of decline of the Greek aristocracy. He was discouraged by both the "mob" (majority rule) and the "elite" (group of nobles) in his country (Johansen 22). He felt that majority rule was irrational and volatile because the average person lacked knowledge and self-restraint, making decisions from emotional responses based on desire and sentiment (Johansen 25). When is comes to metaphysics, Plato’s Theory of the Forms is by far the nucleus of it. For Plato, Forms are timeless essence or entities that rule the well being of a person. Also according to Plato, Forms are transcendental because they depend on the declaration that there is a plane of being outside of our ordinary existence (Tovar 10). Plato divided metaphysics into four levels of reality and four epistemological ways of apprehending the Forms. The four levels of reality are images, sensible objects, lower forms, and higher forms (Tovar 22). The four epistemological ways of apprehending are imagination, perception, reasoning and understanding. When is comes to his epistemology, he tied his dualistic notion of being and becoming. Being is said to be unchangeable and becoming is the way the world appears. Plato though that whatever is relative and always shifting could not be true. So basically Plato is saying the becoming is something that is not real. When it comes to truth...
Words: 1010 - Pages: 5
...Descartes’ Mind Body Dualism Rene Descartes’ main purpose is to attempt to prove that the mind that is the soul or the thinking thing is distinct and is separate from the body. This thinking thing was the core of himself, which doubts, believes, reasons, feels and thinks. Descartes considers the body to be an extended unthinking thing; therefore it is possible that one may exist without the other. This view is known as mind-body dualism. He believes that what he is thinking in his mind is what God created and instilled in him. Descartes outlines many arguments to support and prove his claims of his discoveries. He states that because he can think, his mind exists. This is known as the Cogito, which is the first existential principal of all of Descartes’ work where modern philosophy begins. Descartes also explains that it is possible that all knowledge of external objects, including his body could be false because of the deceiving actions of an evil genius. The evil genius could make him contemplate his existence of his nature as a thinking thing. Descartes further explains in his arguments, even physical objects, such as the body, are better and more distinctly known through the mind than through the body. Descartes shows this through his example of The Wax Argument, where solid wax transitions into liquid state. With all of this in mind, Descartes theories suggest the mind and body can exist separately but it can be argued, the mind needs the body in order to think and reason...
Words: 1480 - Pages: 6
...the view that all ideas are derived from sense experience - The strengths and weaknesses of the view that claims about what exists must ultimately be grounded in and justified by sense experience. This is an analysis of the "empiricist" view: both Hume and Locke are empiricists as they argue that all knowledge depends on experience. Note that the first item asks us to evaluate empiricism as an explanation of the origin of ideas, and the second asks us to evaluate the claim that knowledge must be justified with reference to experience. Locke on the origin of Ideas AO1 Position and its implications: The mind is a tabula rasa or "blank slate" at birth, empty of all ideas and knowledge; it is gradually filled through experience AO1 Detail, Illustration: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding II.1 Locke's definition of "idea" = "the object of thinking" He gives examples: "such as are those expressed by the words whiteness, hardness, sweetness, thinking, motion, man, elephant, army, drunkenness, and others" We might say concepts rather than ideas, the basic mental building blocks of propositions or declarative sentences Ideas are acquired through two processes, sensation or reflection; each is a type of perception, the first of external objects, the second an inward perception of mental processes. Sensation The senses "convey" perceptions into the mind, or rather "they convey into the mind what produces there those perceptions"...
Words: 8854 - Pages: 36
...not physically living the life they perceive as “real” but are stationary beings who are forced to live a false reality prescribe to them. This is where René Descartes’ excerpt differs from the previously mentioned. The person is aware of possibility that what he knows as true could be false, that how could we know if what we are living is done consciously or if our existence is but a dream. All of the excerpts also rely on the reasoning that the mind is the sole contributor of our existence and our physical senses only respond to what the mind knows. The differences in the readings is based on the actions or possible outcomes that occur once the awakening has taken place. In The Matrix, Neo decides to act and decides to embark on a journey to discover reality not being controlled by a computer. Plato’s dialogue is different because this is based on a hypothetically theory, so while there is no physically action the questions lies in how would people respond to the truth. Would man continue to live the false life given to them if the truth was unbearable or not what one expected? René Descartes proposes not that we are being manipulated unwillingly but that our reality could actually be dreams. That the line is easily blurred between the two and how could we distinguish reality from unconscious mind stimulation. Descartes simply argues with himself...
Words: 710 - Pages: 3
...different perspectives which brings about their differences. Dualism for instance, which is derived from the concept “duo” , meaning two, holds the view of the mind/body relationship from a duality perspective. It sees the two entities as being different from each other. Dualists believe that the mind and the body cannot be reduced to be the same thing because doing so will ultimately lead to the deviation of the true meaning of reality. Their focus is aimed at critical analysis of the perspectives that normally bring the differences between the mind and the body. The body is a physical reality. The brain which is part of the body is not equivalent to the mind. Physical manipulation of the brain can be achieved to attain its well-being. For example, surgery can be done to the brain if it is malfunctioning to enhance its efficiency. On the contrary, complex processes which are not physical in nature are normally used to heal mental illnesses. One of the major proponents of this perspective is Rene Descartes. Physicalism is a philosophical entity that holds the view that reality as perceived by human mind does not go beyond the observable things. This term was coined by Otto Nuerath. According to physicalists, there are no real things which are beyond the physical objects....
Words: 1230 - Pages: 5
...The correspondence between philosopher René Descartes and the Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia from 1643 to 1649 give incredible insight not only into the person of René Descartes but the intricacies of his philosophical views, particularly as a critical review of his substance dualism. The core tenants of Cartesian dualism are (in brief) that; 1) There exists only two distinct types of substance; material substances (of the body and the physical realm – that is extended spatially) and immaterial substances (that make up the mind, rationality and the soul.) 2) In relation to the body – Descartes is a mechanist; such that the body operates like a machine, according to internal laws, reactivity to external stimuli. The soul or mind is capable of diverting these automated principles; such that we see the distinction between human reason and action, and the behaviour of animals....
Words: 1075 - Pages: 5
... The First Meditation discusses the importance of doubting everything. Releasing the prejudices that one is accustomed to, one finds himself in need to embark a search for knowledge based on a foundation of solid truths. Descartes establishes that in order to doubt his present opinions, he needs simple reasons, and rather than doubt his all his opinions individually, he has to admit that the entirety of his beliefs is wrong. Everything the author accepts as true he has come to learn from his senses, and though the senses can sometimes deceive with objects that are either very small or far away, he admits that our sensory knowledge is sturdy. In the Second Meditation, after making the choice to doubt everything, the author comes to the conclusion that his body and his senses must not exist, but does that mean he himself does not exist either? And if one doubts the existence of his or her body and senses, then the rest of the world must not exist either, therefore, one is persuaded that he himself does not exist. This leads the author to the conclusion that he exists, since he was there to be persuaded. Descartes reasons that while we must doubt everything, "doubting" is a form of thinking, which is solid proof that the he that is doing the thinking exists, and is a thinking thing. If something is believed to be true by the majority or the ruling class, does not necessitate it to be true. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty emphasizes three types of liberty; the first one he...
Words: 1910 - Pages: 8
...Meditation VI: The Conceivability and Divisibility Arguments The Argument Introduced The Conceivability Argument occurs in Meditation VI. It is Descartes’ most celebrated argument. It was criticised in its day and has been ever since. The argument purports to establish that minds are non-physical substances and hence that a mind is not identical to any bit of the body, such as the brain. A person is a special unity of two substances: physical substance (the body) and mental substance (the mind). Only humans are such special unities. Animals have bodies but lack minds and angels have minds but lack bodies. Here’s the passage: First, I know that everything which I clearly and distinctly understand is capable of being created by God so as to correspond exactly with my understanding of it. Hence the fact that I can clearly and distinctly understand one thing apart from another is enough to make me certain that the two things are distinct, since they are capable of being separated, at least by God. The question of what kind of power is required to bring about such a separation does not affect the judgment that they are distinct. Thus, simply by knowing that I exist and seeing at the same time that absolutely nothing belongs to my nature or essence except that I am a thinking thing, I can infer correctly that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing. It is true that I may have (or, to anticipate, that I certainly have) a body that is very...
Words: 8415 - Pages: 34
...HubPages exploresign injoin now flag Explore »Education and Science (65,836) »Psychology and Psychiatry (3,569) by shazwellyn 1,094 Followers Psychology 101, What Are The Historical Perspectives In Psychology? In this Psychology 101 article, we ask what are the historical perspectives in psychology? Now, this question provokes a thesis on its own, but here we evaluate specific times of extraordinary turning points leading to where we are today. We are all psychologists in our own right. We have the innate ability to draw conclusions by watching the behaviours of others. So, where, whom and what legitimizes psychology as a science and how did we arrive there? It is through history, that we have built and drawn from our own evaluations as a species. So, what is psychology? Psychology Definition As this is a psychology 101 based article, as always, we will start by providing a ‘working definition’ of psychology as a term: ‘Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behaviour of humans and animals.’ Psychologists concentrate on what is observable and measurable in a person’s behaviour. This includes the biological processes in the body, although, the mind is central to the subject. ψ - This is the Greek letter pronounced as 'Sigh' and spelled as 'Psi'. It is now used as the International symbol of Psychology. Psychologists think it is important to be scientific in their study. This is to avoid confused thinking. What Is Psychology...
Words: 1761 - Pages: 8
